Evolutionists Are Simple-Minded

Before you start thinking that Creation Moments has stooped to the level of name-calling, permit us to explain the title we've given to this blog posting.

Recently we asked the evolutionists on our Facebook page to tell us which came first: the heart, the blood or the blood vessels? After all, if the heart evolved first, what good would it be without the other two? If the blood evolved first … well, you get the idea.

The only evolutionist who responded ducked the question entirely but said that the heart could easily have come about through natural processes. After all, he said, the heart is "a simple pump."

Following his line of reasoning, we then asked if the eye is a simple camera and the brain is a simple computer. Though he didn't respond, we suspect he would have answered "yes" but reconsidered, knowing that he was digging an even deeper hole for himself.

A few days ago, an evolutionist wrote: "Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)."

See a pattern here? Evolutionists think they can bolster their argument by claiming that the incredibly complex things God created are actually quite "simple." Random collisions between molecules – given enough time – will certainly be able to create simple things. And those simple things, they continue to conjecture, will gradually become more and more complex things, given enough time (violating the scientifically proven law of increasing entropy, by the way). Case closed, say the evolutionists.

How different this is from the way creationists think! For us, an unfathomably complex God created an incredibly complex universe filled with amazingly complex creatures. Though we're charged with being simple-minded "flat-earthers," the creationist view avoids simplistic explanations that stray from the facts. What scientists once called the "simple cell" is now known to be a city in miniature, complete with manufacturing facilities, transportation systems, power plants and a library of code that enables the cell to be self-replicating. And it's all packed inside that tiny single cell!

Simply put, evolutionism is for the simple-minded.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 10:57.

For those evolutionists, their brains simply didn't evolve -- they remained... simple!

Submitted by April (not verified) on Fri, 2012-05-18 19:27.

Anyone who rejects God's wisdom is willfully simple-minded.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 11:04.

Yes, absolutely agree. How could such a complex structure or range of species come from ignoring the underlying design? Thank God for His marvelous creation. I agree with the title - evolutionists are simple minded (and monkey brain-ed).

Submitted by Marci (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 11:16.

I have also noticed the word 'evolution' and 'evolve' being used a LOT more recently instead of the word 'change' ... as if the enemy is trying to put that word into our conscious so we come to think of it as simply 'change' which makes the theory of evolution easier to accept and believe in the minds of those are still in the dark. Because evolution is impossible, evolutionists don't like to 'dig deep' because then they'll find the truth and that is something they cannot accept, so it becomes easier to just make it all 'simple' instead of the complexity that our world really is. Either that, or I've noticed that every amazing and complex life they discover is all done by 'evolution'. Evolution is their god!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 12:03.

I have thought that evolution is a fairy tale for a long time, but have never realized just how simplistic it really is before.....................

Thanks for this.

MS

Submitted by Jenny (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 12:29.

Ever wonder why atheists and evolutionists hang around blogs they vehemently disagree with? It makes me chuckle. I'm glad they do, though! Maybe they'll begin to hear how hollow their own explanations actually sound and begin to question their unchallenged beliefs and really start to seek.

Submitted by F. Friday (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 13:51.

The whole premise that organisms move from simple to complex is outdated. What we see is entropy. That's the scientific rule. There isn't really something that's the opposite of entropy, scientifically speaking. Although some scientists postulate the existence of extropy, or order from chaos, it's never been observed and breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

Submitted by Don (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 13:54.

This line of reasoning (Biblical creation) is exactly where it should be! Although I am 65 now, I still remember being "kicked out" of a High School Biology class in which we were supposedly learning the "Scientific Method." Following the 7 Steps backwards to the "single atom whirling around in space somewhere", I queried, "Where did the single atom come from?" Next thing I knew, I was sitting in the principal's office because I had shown "disrespect" in questioning the "teacher."

I suggest that more believers simply follow the "logic" shown in this "Evolutionists are Simple-Minded" piece. Propositions of evolutionists must be addressed, defined and then forced to face the "logical conclusions" of Scripture. Kudos to the "right-thinking" of this author!

Submitted by Beth (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 13:58.

Yes, you have to be pretty simple-minded to fall for the fairy-tale of self-creation. You also have to be pretty unscientific to ignore the law of entropy and postulate that there is some kind of negative entropy, or negentropy, that operates apart from intelligence. So far, tests have shown that only intelligent action can defy the second law of thermodynamics, or add energy to a system. What it really boils down to is that only intelligence can produce order instead of chaos.

Submitted by Natalie N. (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 13:59.

The quotes you provided from evolutionists are typical of the kind of whirly-gig tail-chasing they engage in. They think if they throw out big words that they can throw out common sense.

Submitted by QuantumGreg (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 14:00.

But then out of the other side of the mouth of the evolutionist is a quote from Eugenie Scott:

"They [creationists] come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive antievolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you to answer in the time provided."

Their point is that it takes too much time to address the ideas and concepts because they are too complex and creationists are too simple-minded. <Sigh> ... bait and switch technique.

I appreciate your ministry! And I'm thankful that God is indeed Creator and a masterful one at that. And that the things He has created are easily discerned to require supreme intelligence for their origin and operation. AMEN!

Evolution is a simple lie and simple minds over time made it evolve into a big lie.

Submitted by Harry Moore (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 17:03.

I looked over some of the items that one of the Evolutionists sent us. Many names of many animals were used to prove that animals change from one kind to another. Of course, all they did was give names of animals. They didn't give examples of one animal CHANGING into another, since it never happens (other than designed metamorphosis). They showed an "Error" where Protoavis (or Proavis) was removed. Someone must have told them that the creature never existed. It was a figment of someone's fertile imagination, which was readily accepted by those who so adamantly believe the Fairy-tale. Another error (that they didn't realize) is the listing of Archeopteryx as an in-between reptile to bird. They must not know that ALL scientists agree that old Arky was a true bird. Besides, it only takes a "simple" study of the beauty and design of the feather to realize that scales "ain't gonna turn into them".

I have a Black Labrador Retriever who can climb up a tree backwards! I can show you the Lab and I can show you the tree! Dogs became dolphins! I can show you dogs, and I can show you Dolphins! Sea Squirts became fish! I can show you Sea Squirts, and I can show you fish. I guess Coelacanth was removed from the "fish to land animal" list, since they found it alive in the Indian Ocean.

You know, with at least two million different kinds of creatures, surely some would look like a possible in-between animal, but there are none that really are! That's because of Stasis (the stability of kinds), of course.

It's common for evolutionists to pretend they have the answers when they don't even know the first thing about genetics.

Submitted by stevejs on Thu, 2011-04-28 09:48.

If evolutionists really knew anything about genetics, they would know that it supports the fixity of the species, not the origin of species. That's why there's never been a bird that popped out of a reptile's egg. The genetic information for "bird" is just not there. Since genetics actually throws a monkey-wrench (no pun intended) into evolutionary dogma, they have to rely on mutations for the process to work. Unfortunately for them, mutations are always harmful. Even if we were to say (for the sake of argument) that some beneficial mutations occur, the net result of mutations would always lead in a downward direction (devolution). And long periods of time would only make things far, far worse.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 12:53.

One of the most basic theories of genetics is that of mutation. Mutations occur roughly one in ten million base pair splits (1). The typical length of a human genome is 240 million base pairs (2), and there are trillions of cells in a human body. These cells replicate frequently, with exceptions such as neurons and bone cells. Simple math indicates that every time a cell splits, there could easily be 20 mutations. The mutation of one single base pair can cause large repercussions. For example, sickle-cell disease is a serious change caused by the mutation of only one base pair (3). Most mutations have no effect at all. The ones that do have an effect are harmful 70% of the time, while the rest are neutral or beneficial (4). When a beneficial mutation occurs, the chances of an organism possessing it surviving and reproducing increase, even if only slightly; the opposite is true for harmful mutations (5). Even without a citation, that fact would be clear through any logical thinking; if something improves your ability to survive, you are more likely to survive, and harmful mutations will make survival and reproduction less likely. Claiming that a bird never popped out of a reptile's egg is certainly a valid statement, but is primarily a vicious and anti-intellectual straw-man attack. You ignore (either intentionally or out of ignorance; both are likely) that all evolutionists argue for the graduality of evolution. While you may point to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a well-supported explanation of why the fossil records shows stability contrasted with (relatively) rapid morphological change, this does not happen in one generation. Your goofy analogies and silly attacks are not valid arguments. Stick to the facts, not emotions. Also, try and use citations.

If you really stick with the facts, you have to admit that living beings produce after their own kind. Look at the real world, not the world of speculation. How's that for citation?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-09-09 11:26.

Then why are black people black, white people white, and why are there short, tall, skinny, etc? I believe in Christianity and creation (recently saved), but there has to be some form of mutation, evolving, or change if you will. If all people came from one man and one woman, would they not have taken on those exact traits and look exactly like one or the other? Of course they would, if there was not change or mutation or a mix of the mother and father. Given enough time and environmental changes, natural selection would take its course. I'm not saying an ape became a man, I'm saying that there has to be some form of evolution of each species. It only makes sense. If you put a very fair skinned individual in a very solar afflicted environment, that individual (and offspring if they are born) would have to naturally adapt, synthetically adapt, or die off. If you put me (fair skinned) in the plains of Africa without proper shelter, I'd burn, blister, and die without proper adaptation.

You all can attack each other all you want, but no one knows the answers to these questions except for God.

Submitted by hcall7 (not verified) on Mon, 2012-03-12 16:48.

I am a chemical engineer & have been studying evolution/creation for many years (My favorite book is by the atheist Dr. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis"), but I have not done any indepth study of genetics. With that given as my background, why is it not logical that almost all changes (skin pigmentation, nostril size, etc.) which may be more beneficial in certain environments could be from dominant and recessive genes--all of which were in Adam & Eve?

DNA mutations are not only rare, but our bodies have mechanisms that seek them out & destroy them.
Apparently, there is a chance that a DNA mutation will be beneficial, but even that is usually a LOSS of information (such as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics).

The summary of my argument is that mutations are so rare (if possible at all), that "simple" genetics (dominant & recessive genes) is much more likely to be the cause of the MILLIONS of variations in the creatures living on this planet.

As for citations, I believe what I just wrote is what the creation scientists behind the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Creation Magazine (creation.com), & Answers Magazine (AnswersInGenesis.org) teach.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-06-07 18:03.

Here's a citation for you:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)

Yipes! We can't cite God as an authority, can we, because all those human names and titles mean nothing compared to him.

"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is." (Deut. 10:14)

Oh dear! More from God. Gee, we can't admit that God has his facts right. Citing God doesn't count, because if it does, surely humans have to admit they're wrong.

"For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place." (1 Chron. 16:26-27)

Heaven forbid that we might read what the Lord has to say on the subject of creation. Humans must argue with him and pretend they're right.

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." (Neh. 9:6)

Well I never! I guess the Creator shouldn't be cited. It rather makes all those puny humans with their published nonsense look silly.

"The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud.
By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens..." (Job 26:11)

There are some citations for you! Straight from the horse's mouth.

So, if we're going to go with the most reliable source, that would be God. And we would have to conclude that God created the heavens and the earth.

How's that for facts? You don't like them, do you?

Submitted by Skip Applin (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 22:28.

Thank you for offering some assuring words in the midst of all the "laws" of evolution. It is comforting to know that you are constantly supporting my thoughts on this subject with some really good material. Macro-evolution is really nothing more than poor science, which, of course, goes with simple minds.

Submitted by electrician (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 23:01.

It was a great blunder on the part of Creationists to let the Evolutionists set the terms of the debate about Creation versus Evolution. Whoever sets the terms of the debate almost always wins the debate. Creationists should never have allowed the debate to be described as "science versus religion". The true description is: "faith versus religion".

It is simple to demonstrate that evolution is religion. Richard Lewontin, a top of the line evolutionist, said, "Materialism is absolute.We cannot allow a Divine foot in the door". No matter what scientific evidence is set forth to disprove evolution, there will always be another "just so" story concocted to give evolution an out. Many Evolutionists have candidly admitted that the only reason they clung to evolution was not that the evidence drove them to believe in evolution but that,"We wanted to indulge our sexual mores". They don't want to be responsible to a Supreme Being.

Submitted by stevejs on Thu, 2011-04-28 09:41.

You're right - the debate isn't between science and religion. In actuality, both sides of the debate are religious in nature. One believes in God. The other believes in no-God. The abortion debate is quite similar. Those who are pro-abortion changed their name to pro-choice ... and this strategy has proven itself to be very effective. And that's why I never use the term "pro-choice." They have no interest in giving the defenseless pre-born human being a choice between life and death.

Submitted by HeatherM (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-13 18:42.

You've certainly nailed that one on the head. Pro-choice is pro-murder. It's legalizing the killing of innocents. And the victim doesn't get a choice.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-09-09 11:41.

Anyone could change their mind given a certain situation. Example: Lets say a woman couldn't have the abortion she wanted because she was raped. The rapist was of the utmost disgust and cared nothing for the likes of humanity. Unfortunately, some of those genetics were passed along and that child grew up alongside your very own child. One day years down the road, your child was raped or murdered by the rapist's child. Would you not have heart-wrenching, mind-changing pains? If your child were raped, would you want them to have an abortion or have that child? What if it were such a traumatizing event that it prevented your child from being saved or losing their faith? If your child had that child, would you want them to give it up? If so, why? Think about your answer.

Lots of speculation and "ifs", but think about it.

Submitted by steve (not verified) on Mon, 2011-10-03 09:20.

Don't forget God ordered abortion in the book of Deuteronomy. Also the killing of innocent children and women who had children..although not the virgins it seems. So abortion can not be evil or immoral if God ordered it to be done in his name.

Submitted by HeatherM (not verified) on Fri, 2012-06-08 10:58.

I'm sorry. Are you forgetting that all things belong to God, including the lives that are given? Only the Lord can judge between the innocent and the guilty. Who are you to decide to take an innocent life? That unborn child is his, not yours, and only he (a kind and merciful God) is in charge of it.

Obviously you've never actually read the Old Testament. The Lord forbade the shedding of innocent blood, "That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee." (Deut. 19:10)

A murderer can certainly be put to death, but if you kill the innocent, his blood is upon you and your land. You cannot simply step into God's shoes and dictate what should and shouldn't be done to the innocent. If you kill the innocent, you are a murderer.

Mull that one over until you get it.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-28 11:52.

The original question that sparked this conversation is brilliant. However, some of the discourse may be veering slightly away from a clear focus. If you read National Geographic articles focused on the subject of origins, it is hard to label those who have done the research and writing as "simple-minded evolutionist." Mistaken, yes. Simple-minded, no. Their work indicates diligence and intelligence. Let us ask our wise Heavenly Father for more brilliant questions to ask. And when we have opportunities to answer, may our words be salt and light.

Submitted by stevejs on Thu, 2011-04-28 12:05.

Please read the article again more closely. We weren't engaging in name-calling or putting anyone down. We were simply calling attention to the fact that evolutionists try to make things seem much simpler than they really are. This gives the theory of evolution a lower hurdle to jump over.

Submitted by J.C. (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-28 13:24.

I've got to say that evolutionists aren't clear-minded. Clever, maybe, but not very intelligent. Convoluted thinking is their forte.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Fri, 2012-05-18 19:43.

Not too clever, either, unless you count it clever to be completely wrong.

Submitted by J.C. (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-28 13:27.

Cloaking the stupidity of evolutionism in big words might fool the simple-minded, but it's not going to change facts. Only someone with the kind of brain that enjoys convoluted garbage that is fraught with theoretical nothings would go for it.

Submitted by Larry Fitzhenry (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-30 14:45.

As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and all things within it. However, I also think that this idea is compatible with science and evolution. If we believe that God created the atom and set time into motion, then we can also believe that He created the natural laws for galaxies to form and life to emerge. Science suggests that the 'Big Bang' occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and the solar system (along with the Earth) formed 4.5 billion years ago. On Earth, life is thought to have first developed about 3.8 billion years ago. The first cells weren't really living as we would think of today; they consisted of simple spheres of lipid membranes that were able to use energy from their environment to organize themselves. The defining characteristic of living cells is that they can overlook the law of entropy by increasing their own organization while decreasing the organization of the environment around them. In this way, entropy is essential for the development and evolution of life, and all living things harness entropy for their own use. These most primitive cells didn't have DNA or any genetic material, and one could say that they were in fact simple molecules. These packets of organized molecules grew large and could break off, forming new packets. Genetic material (RNA, DNA) developed later as a way to organize the processes of the cells and give orders. Genetic material also permitted the miracle of evolution to occur, where genetic material undergoes random mutations (very slowly, mind you) and 99.99% of the time, these mutations are detrimental to the survival of the organism. It's that 0.01% of the time that that might be beneficial to survival, that these mutations might enable the organism to survive longer and reproduce more often. This mutation is passed down to offspring through the same genetic material, and it extrapolates through time. Evolution is an incredible phenomenon, and it took 3.8 BILLION years to get us where we are today. But we cannot deny that it exists.

In regards to your question about the heart, I'm sorry that the evolutionists on your facebook page couldn't answer the question. I perform medical research on embryonic heart development, so I can better explain it.

In short, the blood came first, with no blood vessels or pumps. Starfish and jellyfish do not have a heart nor blood vessels, but their cells are immersed in a watery fluid that provides them with nutrients. However, without a heart, they can't perform much activity (that's why we think of these animals as slow and graceful).

Organisms like snails, horseshoe crabs, and insects have a heart to pump blood, which enables them to perform more activity and/or grow larger. However, their circulatory systems are inefficient because they don't have blood vessels. Instead, a fluid called hemolymph just flows around the inside of their bodies, delivering nutrients to the cells, but not in an efficient manner.

More complex animals have blood, hearts, and a circulatory system. However, our hearts don't look like the hearts in lower creatures. Snails and insects have a one chambered heart. Simple fish have two chambered hearts. Reptiles and amphibians have a three chamber heart, and we have a four chambered heart. Four chambers allows our hearts (and the hearts of all mammals) to be incredibly efficient at pumping blood throughout our bodies.

You're absolutely right; God is unfathomably complex and created an incredibly complex universe, but this doesn't have to mean that he personally created everything in it. Instead, he created the building blocks and made laws for the universe. He then allowed these building blocks to follow the laws he created and develop into things of incredible wonder. I believe in science because it allows us to appreciate God in yet another way. We will never fully understand God, but studying His work allows us to worship him more fully.

I'd love to discuss this matter further. If you have any questions or find flaws in my argument, please send me an e-mail and I'll get back as soon as possible. My email is <a href="mailto:fitzhenryl@yahoo.com">fitzhenryl@yahoo.com</a>.

Best,
Larry

Submitted by Hannah (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 16:24.

Evolutionism is not compatible with the Bible. The Lord said he specifically created each living thing after its own kind. That leaves out the nebulous self-developing "building blocks" theory you just put forth. Frankly, theistic evolution is nothing but a cop out. It's trying to be agreeable with what is popular and wrong. Anyone who is so interested in bowing down to the foolishness of the world that he or she won't even pay attention to what God said is hardly an authority on anything, let alone the Bible.

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalm 33)

Submitted by Harry (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-24 17:17.

Once you get past Genesis, Chapter one you can believe anything. I happen to believe in a literal creation as proclaimed in the first book of the Bible in seven 24hour days. It has never been proved otherwise.

Submitted by Sally (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-01 06:04.

"Once you get past Genesis, Chapter one you can believe anything."

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Genesis one and two contradict each other. Neither account matches reality and neither account is anything other than a primitive man's attempt at rationalising the world around them.

The bible is nothing short of a book of fairy stories. Once you get past Genesis, Chapter one and see it for the simple minded fable that it is, then you can start to believe reality.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-30 19:28.

Right, you are really dreaming and don't understand God's word.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-09-09 11:54.

Who physically wrote the Bible those thousands of years ago? Man or God? If it was man, there could have been mistakes or misinterpretations made? I have yet to meet a person in my life that has never made either.

I believe in the word of God, but there have been so many re-interpretations, is it not possible we just don't understand it all... even today?

Submitted by Richard (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-21 14:00.

You started out saying "As a Christian..." If you don't believe the six days of creation, then what other parts of the Bible do you choose not believe? You are basically calling God a liar. He did create a VERY complex universe, and he SPOKE it into existence in just 6 days.

Submitted by M.O (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-05 15:20.

Wold is so complex... It is silly to believe in a theory backed up with proofs (evolution mechanisms are actually verified in laboratories on fast-reproducing bacteria but this certainly is a simple-minded evolutionist plot) and strong arguments (well... fossils? it would be too obvious).

How could we cleverly explain universe ? How could we replace the unbelievable mystery of life with a completely clear and evident explanation ? "An unfathomably complex God created an incredibly complex universe filled with amazingly complex creatures".

Brilliant !

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-07-06 23:01.

Atheists and Evolutionists are always claiming that whenever we point out an error in the hypothesis of evolution that we simply do not understand the concept of Evolution and by saying this they use this as a leverage against us to further strengthen their claims that the creationist point of view is backwards and superstitious.

Submitted by Andrew T (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-30 23:52.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I can't in good conscience try to refute your argument. I can say, though, that you've made one glaring error.

When you made the parenthetical statement "violating the scientifically proven law of increasing entropy, by the way," you demonstrated just how little you actually knew about this topic.

The second law of thermodynamics, which you have referenced, applies only to a closed system. So, if you took a reaction, put it in an insulated test tube, and measured it, you would see the entropy of the system rise or stabilize, but never decrease.

If, however, you then heated the test tube, entropy would decrease, because you've added energy from an outside source. In the context of Earth and evolution, that outside heating source is the sun. The sun provides the energy and radiation necessary for life to exist. This energy also is why it's plausible that increasingly complex organisms evolved from less complex organisms.

There's more I can say on the other topics you've touched on, but they are many, it is late, and I am tired. Before I go to bed, though, I'll leave you with this link to a short page. On it, you'll find the definitions for "Fact," "Hypothesis," "Law," and "Theory" as they are used in scientific papers.

Submitted by Rinnosuke (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-31 02:38.

Look up Hypoplastic left heart syndrome. My son died of this earlier this year. Now tell me his heart was designed by an all knowing deity. I simply do not believe this is possible.

Submitted by Buddell (not verified) on Mon, 2011-09-05 17:41.

What is simple-minded is a belief in ghosts, goblins, fairy tales, fables, and a work of hysterical fiction. The Theory of Evolution has been proved 1000's of times over. Your cute little parlor games prove nothing. This scientific theory, a theory based on proof not fiction, has never been disproved. And the best scientific minds have tried, always to fail. But you can't prove god exists just as I can't prove the Bogeyman exists. Or Bigfoot. Or any other varieties of ghostly stories better told around a campfire to scare kids. Religious belief is very scary. It has been the source of billions of deaths worldwide. Faith is not proof.

Submitted by Lee Whitt (not verified) on Wed, 2011-09-21 01:30.

I've been trying to get Professor Punk Greg Graffin of the punk band Bad Religion to answer my questions on Facebook. I received a response from some guy named B-Rad who represents Bad Religion. He wrote "you don't know the basics of evolution." I replied, years ago I did not know much about evolution. So, I read Darwin's Black Box, being open-minded, something evolutionist's are lacking. I also mentioned that Darwin's Black Box is what made me realize there is a Creator. I then asked him to explain it to me. I'm still waiting for a response. Go figure. All I asked was how does a primordial soup creature with just part of a evolving heart, lungs, and brain live. How can part of a lung support air to part of a brain through part of a heart. I guess I stumped B-Rad and Professor Punk.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Fri, 2012-05-18 19:30.

Random collisions between molecules that somehow formed, given time ...

Wow! How did these collisions start? What was the impetus? How did the molecules form? Where did time come from? Who gave it? Where did all this stuff come from and why and how is it acting this way?

Evolutionists make so many absurd presumptions that they really ought to stop pretending they have open minds. Simple minds is much more like it.